Report to Congress
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
A Feasibility Study of
Regional Air-Cargo Airports:
Including a Case Study of a
Regional Air-Cargo Center for the
Washington, D.C., Area
Washington, D.C. 20591
August 1991
Report of the Federal Aviation
Administration Pursuant to
Senate Report 101-121
Accompanying the Department
of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
2
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 7
I — Introduction. ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Study Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 10
Problem Areas ................................................................................................................................ 11
II — Background and Future Requirements. .............................................................................................. 13
Evolution of the Air-Cargo Industry ............................................................................................. 13
Pre Deregulation ...................................................................................................................... 13
Post Deregulation .................................................................................................................... 14
Current Status ................................................................................................................................ 15
Future Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 17
III — Regional Air-Cargo Centers ............................................................................................................... 19
Description of the Concept ........................................................................................................... 19
Developing a Regional Air-Cargo Center ...................................................................................... 20
Advantages ............................................................................................................................... 20
Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................... 21
Integrated and Traditional Air-Cargo Carriers ........................................................................ 22
Facilities Required.................................................................................................................... 23
Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 24
New Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 24
Converting and Improving an Existing Airport ..................................................................... 26
Case Studies ................................................................................................................................... 27
Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) ........................................................................................... 27
Stewart International Airport (SWF) ......................................................................................... 29
Huntsville International Airport (HSV)..................................................................................... 33
IV — Analysis of Air-Cargo Operations ..................................................................................................... 35
Cargo Operations and Their Contribution to Delay..................................................................... 35
Analysis of All-Cargo Operations at New York-Area Airports ....................................................... 39
General .................................................................................................................................... 39
John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) ........................................................................... 41
LaGuardia Airport (LGA) ........................................................................................................... 43
Newark International (EWR) ..................................................................................................... 45
V — Air-cargo Operations in the Washington, D.C., Area ........................................................................ 47
Description of Washington Air-Cargo Operations ....................................................................... 47
Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) ...................................................................... 47
Washington National Airport (DCA) ........................................................................................ 49
Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) ................................................................ 51
Effects of Air-Cargo Operations on Congestion and Delay .......................................................... 53
General .................................................................................................................................... 53
Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) ...................................................................... 53
Washington National Airport (DCA) ........................................................................................ 57
Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) ................................................................ 57
Alternative Locations for Washington, D.C., Regional Air-Cargo Facility ................................... 59
Tipton Army Airfield (FME) Fort Meade, MD ........................................................................... 59
Martin State Airport (MTN) ....................................................................................................... 61
Winchester Regional Airport (W16)......................................................................................... 61
Martinsburg Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport (MRB) .................................................... 63
Hagerstown Washington County Regional Airport (HGR) ...................................................... 63
VI — Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix A — Tabulation of Hourly Operations ...................................................................................... 67
3
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
4
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
World Air Freight Forecast ................................................................................................ 17
Fort Worth Alliance Airport (AFW) ..................................................................................... 28
Stewart International Airport (SWF) ................................................................................... 30
Huntsville International Airport (HSV) .............................................................................. 32
Total Hourly Operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport ............................... 40
John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) ..................................................................... 41
Total Hourly Operations at La Guardia International Airport ......................................... 42
La Guardia International Airport (LGA) ............................................................................. 43
Total Hourly Operations at Newark International Airport .............................................. 44
Newark International Airport (EWR) .................................................................................. 45
Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) ................................................................ 48
Washington National Airport (DCA) .................................................................................. 48
Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) .......................................................... 50
Total Hourly Operations at Washington Dulles International Airport ........................... 52
Total Hourly Operations at Washington National International Airport ....................... 56
Total Hourly Operations at Baltimore/Washington International Airport ..................... 58
Tipton Army Airfield (FME) ................................................................................................ 60
Martin State Airport (MTN) ................................................................................................. 60
Winchester Regional Airport (W16) .................................................................................. 60
Martinsburg Eastern WVa Regional Airport (MRB) ............................................................ 62
Hagerstown Washington County Regional Airport (HGR) ................................................ 62
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
U.S. Airline Freight Traffic ................................................................................................ 16
Enplaned and deplaned freight and mail, including express — year ending 12/31/88 ... 36
Percentage of Operations Delayed 15 Minutes or More .................................................. 37
Comparison of Rankings in Delay and Cargo Tonnage ................................................... 38
Aircraft Operations, Washington Dulles Int’l Airport ...................................................... 54
Aircraft Operations, Baltimore/Washington Int’l Airport ................................................ 59
Arrivals and departures by hour at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on 11/28/90 .............. 68
Arrivals and departures by hour at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on 11/29/90 .............. 69
Arrivals and departures by hour at LaGuardia Airport on 11/28/90 ............................... 70
Arrivals and departures by hour at LaGuardia Airport on 11/29/90 ............................... 71
Arrivals and departures by hour at Newark International Airport on 11/28/90 .............. 72
Arrivals and departures by hour at Newark International Airport on 11/29/90 .............. 73
Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington Dulles Int’l Airport 11/28/90 ...............74
Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington Dulles Int’l Airport 11/29/90 ...............75
Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington National Airport 11/28/90 ...................76
Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington National Airport 11/29/90 ...................77
Arrivals and departures by hour at Baltimore/Washington Int’l Airport on 11/28/90 .... 78
Arrivals and departures by hour at Baltimore/Washington Int’l Airport 11/29/90 ......... 79
5
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
6
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Executive Summary
and Airborne Express in Wilmington, Ohio.
These facilities are concentrated in a geographic area around the Ohio River Valley
where flights can be brought together efficiently to transfer cargo. There may be other
opportunities to develop successful cargo
airports but they are not apparent at this time.
Fort Worth Alliance Airport has been cited as a
successful cargo airport, but the airport has
not contracted with any all-cargo operator yet.
Instead, the airport is operating as a general
purpose reliever. Its activity has primarily
been general aviation and airline training
operations, and its tenants include manufacturers and companies involved in aircraft
maintenance. This sort of multi-purpose
reliever airport could be feasible in many
urban areas.
It is expected that cargo will remain concentrated at very busy airports near major
population centers where there is ample
capacity available to shippers in the baggage
holds of airliners. Air-cargo sorting operations
will continue to be located at a few airports
that the small-package, express carriers consider to be well located for that purpose.
Efforts to develop regional air-cargo airports at
other locations will involve considerable
expense and financial risk. The least expensive
approach may be to initiate civil air-cargo
flights at military airfields under surplusproperty or joint-use agreements. Military
airfields have many of the attributes needed
by cargo airports, including long, strong
runways, ample apron area, and good highway access.
The air-cargo industry is dynamic and
rapidly growing, and it is recommended that
this subject be reconsidered periodically.
The potential of regional air-cargo airports
to relieve congestion at major airports in the
immediate area has been examined by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at the
request of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senate Report 101-121 accompanying the
Department of Transportation FY 1990 Appropriations Act called for the study to include
the feasibility of establishing an air-cargo
airport in the immediate Washington, D.C.,
area. This report presents the FAA’s findings.
While a large portion of air-cargo operations is
handled at busy air-carrier airports, this
activity usually does not add significantly to
congestion because cargo flights are few in
number and occur during off-peak hours.
Many major airports actively encourage cargo
because it generates additional jobs and
airport revenues. It is estimated that more than
half of all air cargo is carried in the baggage
holds of scheduled airliners, and, under most
circumstances, it would be extremely difficult
and inefficient to isolate cargo from passenger
operations.
The question remains whether an air-cargo
airport could succeed if it were developed for
other reasons besides relieving congestion,
such as to encourage land development or
stimulate economic growth. There is no promising model at this time. Substantial efforts to
develop Stewart International Airport in
Newburg, New York, and Huntsville International Airport in Huntsville, Alabama, have
not yet attracted a large part of the air-cargo
market. The only clearly successful recent
examples are the sorting facilities of smallpackage, express-delivery services, such as
Federal Express in Memphis, Tennessee,
United Parcel Service in Louisville, Kentucky,
7
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
8
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
I — Introduction.
Purpose
This report has been prepared in response to language in Senate Report 101-121 on the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
for FY 1990. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
was requested to study the feasibility of establishing
regional air-cargo airports to relieve congestion at major
airports in the immediate area. The study was to include
the impact of an air freight and cargo operations facility
to alleviate congestion and thereby increase capacity at
the major airports in the Washington, D.C., area. This
area includes Washington Dulles International Airport,
Washington National Airport, and Baltimore/Washington International Airport.
Background
Air traffic delay is a serious problem, and it is expected to worsen because of the widening gap between
the capacity of major airports and the traffic these airports are required to handle. According to FAA forecasts,
the number of airports where airline delays exceed
20,000 hours annually will grow from 21 in 1988 to 41 by
1998 unless major capacity improvements are made to
the national airport system. In addition, 15 airports will
incur between 50,000 and 100,000 hours of airline aircraft
delays annually by 1998 as opposed to just 5 today.
The top 100 airports in the U.S. account for 90 percent
of the airline passengers enplaned, and the number of
enplanements is projected to grow by 56 percent over the
next 10 years. Aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings)
at these same 100 airports are expected to grow by
36 percent during that same period to accommodate the
increase in passenger demand.
Both the quality and cost of air service are strongly
tied to aviation system capacity. In the dozen years since
airline deregulation, real air fares have declined, and the
airlines’ emphasis on the hub-and-spoke system has
improved the service to many cities. System capacity
must continue to grow to allow for airline competition if
this trend is to continue.
Large capacity gains result from the construction of
new runways and new airports. For example, the new
Denver airport will increase capacity and reduce congestion in Denver as well as reduce delays system-wide.
However, at a cost of over $2.5 billion for a new airport
9
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
like Denver, it will be a challenge to finance and build
others. New runways at existing airports also face opposition because of their environmental impact as well as
their cost. In addition to new construction, other alternatives to increase capacity need to be investigated.
The FAA and the aviation industry have been working
on a wide variety of alternatives to enhance capacity.
These alternatives include: improvements in approach
procedures and airspace planning and design, applications of new technology that have emerged from Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) programs,
and solutions developed through free market influences,
such as potentially new connecting hub airports, reliever
airports, and expanded use of existing commercial
service airports. The concept of developing regional aircargo airports, separate from the major passenger hub
airports, has been proposed as an alternative that could
reduce congestion and delay at major airports.
The dynamic growth in the passenger side of the air
transportation industry since deregulation and its impact
on capacity have been well-documented and publicized.
The air-cargo segment of the industry, on the other hand,
has not been as well-studied, even though its growth has
also been remarkable. There is some concern that rapidly
expanding cargo operations at the major hub airports
will add to the problems of congestion and delay these
airports are experiencing as a result of expanding passenger operations. However, this study has found that allcargo operations do not add to congestion and delays
because these operations occur primarily in off-peak
hours.
Study Methodology
Various means were used to conduct the study, as
summarized below:
• A thorough literature search (magazines, journals,
technical papers and reports) was performed.
Sources in the airlines, air-cargo carriers, and
airports were located and interviewed.
• Air-cargo and passenger data, including historical
and forecasted growth, current volumes, and
operations were gathered.
• The contribution of air-cargo operations to major
air carrier airport congestion and delays was
analyzed.
10
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
• Past and current efforts to develop regional aircargo centers were analyzed.
• The national air-cargo system was analyzed to
develop pros and cons in establishing regional
air-cargo centers. These pros and cons were
applied to the establishment of a regional aircargo center for the Washington, D.C., area.
• Cost estimates for developing a new regional aircargo center and for converting and improving an
existing airport facility were obtained.
Problem Areas
Early in the study it became apparent that a great
deal of the data necessary to perform a rigorous statistical analysis simply did not exist in any readily accessible
form. Gathering data was far more difficult than had
been anticipated. However, it was possible to derive
operational characteristics from the data available.
11
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
12
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
II — Background and Future Requirements.
Evolution of the
Air-Cargo Industry
Pre Deregulation
Until 1977, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) maintained strict regulation of nearly all facets of the U.S.
commercial air-cargo industry. During the early years,
all-cargo carriers dominated the business. However,
starting in the 1950’s, several of the larger passenger/
combination carriers entered the all-cargo business by
acquiring fleets of freighter and/or QC (quick change)
aircraft. These combination carriers continued to operate
significant fleets of jet freighters until air-cargo deregulation. They were formidable competitors to the U.S. allcargo airline operators, especially on the domestic routes,
because they had greater financial strength, they offered
day and night service combining the schedules and
capacity of their passenger aircraft and freighter operations, and they could cross subsidize between their
passenger and cargo operations.
Another element in the air-cargo industry was the air
freight forwarders, such as Airborne, Emery, and UPS.
They marketed, assembled, and consolidated air cargo,
provided pick-up and delivery service, and assumed
responsibility for the shipment from point of origin to
point of destination. To provide this service, the forwarders used the direct air carriers (both combination and allcargo) for the line-haul portion of the movement. By 1970
there were approximately 250 certificated U.S. air freight
forwarders, with the top 10 companies representing well
over 50 percent of the total forwarder traffic. In 1970, the
CAB allowed five long-haul railroad or motor carrier
companies to enter the market, further increasing competition.
The original small package “air express” service was
offered by scheduled airlines in conjunction with the
Railway Express Agency (REA). The airlines collectively
negotiated an agreement with REA to act as their ground
agent. However, during the 1970’s, air express activity
declined in shipper patronage, largely due to operational
and financial difficulties at REA. In 1975 REA ceased
operations and filed a petition for bankruptcy.
The air freight forwarding industry continued to
grow in the early to mid–1970’s, and air freight generally
13
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
exceeded the growth rates of the U.S. economy. But,
many structural problems emerged to create a massive
shift in market power. A primary factor was the seven
consecutive years of losses on all-cargo operations suffered by the U.S. domestic airlines. During this time,
three airlines discontinued freighter service completely
and two others downsized considerably. Domestic allcargo service was reduced by approximately 50 percent.
To a great extent, these losses were caused by the jump in
fuel prices experienced in 1973-74 and by artificially low
domestic freight rates set by the CAB. This was compounded by the entry of passenger wide-body aircraft
into the cargo market. These aircraft, with their huge
belly holds, created a large excess of air-cargo capacity.
The down-sizing of all-cargo service caused the
freight forwarders, who required and could no longer get
high volumes of overnight lift, to seek new solutions.
Most decided to provide their own dedicated lift, rather
than depend on passenger carriers that provided coverage for barely 65 percent of the U.S. domestic air-cargo/
express marketplace, and whose shipment, tracing, and
tracking systems were at best rudimentary and inadequate.
Post Deregulation
During the past 15 years, there has been a dramatic
change in the composition of the carrier group providing
all-cargo aircraft services. This is largely due to the deregulation of the air-cargo industry in 1977. Because of
the exceptionally high and sustained growth rates in
traffic and revenues since deregulation, the U.S. freighter
fleet today is much larger than it ever was.
The emergence of the integrated air express business
has been particularly significant. Started by DHL, and
continued with remarkable success by Federal Express,
air express has been one of the fastest growing segments
of the air-cargo industry. By and large, the new carriers
do not depend on forwarders, consolidators, or other
third parties to provide their traffic, as was the case for
the passenger/combination carriers and the scheduled
all-cargo carriers before deregulation. Much of the expansion of the U.S. freighter fleet is due to this integrated, airexpress segment of the industry. A parallel development
since deregulation has been the growth of cargo charter
airlines. Many of the freight forwarders contract all their
flight operations to several of these carriers.
14
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
In summary, the major U.S. passenger/combination
carriers, with the exception of Northwest, have suspended all-cargo operations. With the buyout of Flying
Tigers by Federal Express, the last pre-deregulation allcargo carrier has succumbed. In 1977, the all-cargo/
express carriers represented approximately 15 percent of
the total cargo jet lift capacity. By the end of 1987, the allcargo/express industry’s fleet of 355 jets accounted for
approximately 75 percent of the total cargo jet lift capacity. This trend has continued, with the all-cargo/express
carriers growing at a rate of approximately 15 percent per
year.
Current Status
Today the air-cargo/express industry provides
overnight express service to and from virtually every zip
code in the country. Customer service features, such as
state-of-the-art tracing and tracking capability, on-call
pick-up service, Saturday service, residential coverage,
money-back guarantees, and automated billing and
reporting systems, among numerous other advances, are
innovations since 1973.
The industry is highly competitive. Pricing is a powerful marketing tool in terms of building volume and
gaining market share. The growth and development of
this industry structure has been significantly beneficial to
all shippers and consumers throughout the United
States. Air freight costs to the shipper have actually
declined since 1980.
Services of the air-cargo/express industry have been
a major factor in bringing small communities and rural
America into the mainstream of economic growth. New
manufacturing and high technology plants, along with
medical and research centers, are being attracted to low
capital/production cost areas of the country, at least in
part, because they are provided regular express transportation access to every other corner of America, and most
parts of the world.
Passenger airlines are no longer a major presence in
the small package express market, but they continue to
dominate the airport-to-airport movement of large
shipments. Interviews with industry specialists, air
carriers, airports, and others indicate that approximately
60 percent of all air cargo is still carried as belly cargo on
scheduled airliners.
Despite this high percentage of ton-miles flown, the
passenger/combination carriers account for only
15
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
13 percent of the air-cargo/express revenue in domestic
markets due to wide disparities in yield, according to a
study by Leeper, Cambridge, & Campbell, Inc., called The
All-Cargo Air Carrier Industry: Its Economic Impact and
Future Needs. Traditional passenger/combination carriers
have increased their system freight and express traffic by
only 12.7 percent since 1977. Domestic revenue ton-miles
have actually declined by 10.5 percent, while international freight and express ton-miles increased 53.4 percent.
Table 1 shows the average annual growth from 1980
to 1988 for U.S. airline freight traffic. The major growth
has been in the express carriers, and the growth in international operations has been much greater than that for
domestic operations.
This international market has attracted a host of
foreign competitors to the U.S. carriers. According to the
September 1990 issue of Cargo Facts, of the top 10 freight
carriers in 1989, seven were foreign flag carriers. These
foreign flag carriers are still aggressively seeking business
in the U.S., as reflected by the opening of major new
cargo terminals at several U.S. airports and the acquisition of new 747-400F freighters.
TABLE 1
U.S. AIRLINE FREIGHT TRAFFIC
Revenue Ton Miles in Millions
1980
1984
1988
Average
Annual
Growth
Domestic
Scheduled
Charter
Express Carriers
Subtotal
3,273
291
312
3,876
3,558
615
1,338
5,511
3,660
251
3,543
7,453
1.4%
-1.8%
35.5%
8.5%
International
Scheduled
Charter
Subtotal
2,466
508
2,974
2,989
524
3,512
4,788
1,191
5,979
8.6%
11.2%
9.1%
Total U.S. Airlines
Scheduled
Charter
Express Carriers
5,739
799
312
6,546
1,139
1,338
8,447
1,442
3,543
5.0%
7.7%
35.5%
Grand Total
6,850
9,023
13,432
8.8%
Source: Boeing, World Air Cargo Forecast
16
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
The Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast predicts a 6.7 percent annual growth rate in world air cargo (Figure 1).
Asian markets continue to lead the pack with annual
growth rates of 8 to 8.5 percent. Intra-European markets
should grow at about 5.5 percent per year. In the U.S., the
$22 billion a year domestic market, which makes up
about 20 percent of all air cargo carried in the world, is
expected to double by 1995.
Aircraft capacity can be expected to keep pace with
demand. Currently, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas
have orders for almost 2,200 aircraft between them. With
the expected increase in the passenger market and lack of
pure freighters available, cargo capacity should remain
static in the short term. However, since the air-cargo
industry is presently in an “over-capacity” status, this is
not expected to limit air-cargo growth in any way. Of the
international and domestic airlines responding to inquiries on their average unused cargo capacity, the percentages of unused belly-and combi-cargo capacity ranged
from a low of 15 percent to a high of 97 percent, but the
average was about 40 to 50 percent. The percentages of
unused all-cargo capacity ranged from 3.5 to 32 percent,
with an average of about 20 percent. According to the
Cargo Facts issues of May 1990 and June 1990, the load
factor for selected all-cargo aircraft in domestic service
for the fourth quarter of 1989 averaged about 50 percent
of available capacity. By the time current capacity is
reached, new aircraft will be on-line and ready to absorb
any additional growth.
Future Requirements
FIGURE 1
WORLD AIR FREIGHT FORECAST
170
Historical
Forecast
150
Revenue Ton Kilometers
(Billions)
Forecast Growth Rates (%)
130
High
Baseline
Low
100
1989-1995
8.9
7.5
6.1
High
1995-2000
6.5
5.7
5.0
1989-2000
7.8
6.7
5.6
Baseline
80
Low
60
9.7% per year
40
20
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
Source: Boeing, World Air Cargo Forecast
17
1990
1995
2000
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
18
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
III — Regional Air-Cargo Centers
Description of the Concept
The concept of developing regional air-cargo centers
has evolved over a number of years, primarily as a result
of successful examples of integrated, small-package,
express carriers deliberately choosing less congested
airports, away from major metropolitan areas, as their
primary and regional hubs. When studying the problems
of congestion and delay at major air carrier airports,
cargo operations appear to be separate from passenger
operations, that is, an entity that could be moved to a less
congested airport relatively easily. The rationale for this
separation is that all-cargo aircraft require take-off,
landing, and runway time that could be used by passenger aircraft. A corollary of this is that cargo operations
use valuable ramp space, and their warehouses and
cargo-handling facilities occupy potential passenger
terminal space.
If it is to be part of the solution to congestion and
delay, a regional air-cargo center must be far enough
from the major metropolitan airports to avoid any interference with, and delay of, aircraft on approach to, or
departure from, these airports. At the same time, it must
be close to the metropolitan area and have good access to
highway systems in order to support the overnight and
one-or-two-day delivery requirements of air freight. This
would enable the center to serve its customers through a
hub-and-spoke network of feeder airlines and road
feeder services designed to reach outlying points. For a
regional air-cargo center to be successful, the lack of
infrastructure congestion and ease of access must improve cargo handling sufficiently to attract cargo customers and operators from the metropolitan airports.
Stewart International Airport, New York, and Fort
Worth Alliance Airport, Texas, are often cited as examples of regional air-cargo centers. However, Fort
Worth Alliance, which opened in early 1990, has not
established air-cargo carrier operations as yet. Several aircargo carriers do have operations at Stewart, and some of
them have expansion plans. Currently, however, there
are only a few all-cargo operations each day at Stewart.
Huntsville International Airport, north of Birmingham,
Alabama, with its International Intermodal Center, is
another example of what could become a regional air-
19
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
cargo facility. But, it too has only a few all-cargo flights
each day. (Each of these examples is described in more
detail in Section III.) None of these airports has been able
to relieve congestion and delay by attracting air-cargo
operations from nearby air carrier airports.
Developing a Regional
Air-Cargo Center
Advantages
Capacity Enhancement
Because there are so few all-cargo flights, regional aircargo centers are also able to accommodate a large number of operations by General Aviation (GA). The latter, in
fact, may be of more benefit to capacity enhancement. GA
pilots are often eager to avoid congestion and delay at
busy air-carrier airports. Relocating GA aircraft from
congested airports can free up slots for use by the air
carriers.
Economic Development
Airports, including regional air-cargo centers and
industrial airports, may act as magnets for business
development. The example of Fort Worth Alliance Airport is described in Section III. Facilities of this type may
attract industries that are related to the aviation industry,
that use Just-In-Time (JIT) inventory control systems, or
that deal in perishable goods imported from or exported
to overseas markets, among others.
Preparation for
the Future
The consensus among aviation experts is that air
cargo will continue to grow in the future. Those Nations
which prepare for this situation will be in a better position to deal with the increase, dominate the transportation market, attract industry, and obtain overall economic
benefits.
Joint-Use
Military air bases lend themselves to air-cargo use
under surplus-property or joint-use agreements. The
runways are usually able to accommodate even the
largest cargo jets. Most of the necessary infrastructure
(highways, buildings, sewage, electricity, water, etc.) is
already in place. In those areas where joint use is contemplated, a limited number of cargo operations may be less
disruptive to military operations than passenger traffic.
20
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
One serious obstacle is aircraft noise, because air-cargo
carriers often operate at night and may use older and
noisier aircraft than passenger airlines.
Disadvantages
Cost
Although new regional air-cargo centers do not cost
as much as passenger airports, the expense is considerable (see Section III, Cost Estimates) and income may be
much lower. Conversion of existing airports is somewhat less expensive, but the costs are still substantial.
Space
There are very few remaining sites for new airports
close enough to major metropolitan areas to serve as
regional cargo centers. During the last thirty years, urban
development has taken up most of the available land.
Areas which are available tend to be remote and do not
possess the necessary infrastructure. The most likely
alternative would involve conversion of an existing
airport, but few are ideally located for this purpose.
Infrastructure
Regional air-cargo centers must be served by a welldeveloped highway system. They must be supported by
sewage, water, electricity, and telephone systems. Taking
the Fort Worth Alliance Airport as an example, the
infrastructure enhancements necessary to support the
facility are projected to cost at least twice what the airport
facility itself cost.
Operational Efficiency
All-cargo operations are not easily separated from
passenger operations. Fully 60 percent of air cargo is still
moved as belly cargo. Since belly cargo is carried on
passenger aircraft, it must remain at the air carrier airports. Separation of all-cargo and belly cargo will force
agents and freight forwarders who deal in both types of
operations to maintain facilities at two or more locations.
In addition, they will lose at least a certain degree of
flexibility in deciding whether to send a particular cargo
shipment as belly cargo or on an all-cargo aircraft.
Airport Efficiency
Most all-cargo/express flight operations are conducted late at night or early in the morning (about 10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). According to a study by Leeper, Cambridge, & Campbell, Inc., fully 66 percent of the all-cargo
21
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
carriers’ jet operations are at night. For most airports,
these are the very hours that aircraft operations are at
their lowest point, with very few passenger aircraft
taking off or landing. At major air-carrier airports, which
must remain open 24 hours a day, nighttime all-cargo
operations make efficient use of the airport facilities and
generate revenue for the airport without adding significantly to airport congestion and air-traffic delay.
Shipment Delays
Integrated and Traditional
Air-Cargo Carriers
Integrated carriers move their overflow in belly cargo.
They require the availability of passenger aircraft to
maintain their schedules. Removing these carriers to an
all-cargo facility would require them to ship their overflow to air-carrier airports by truck, thus unacceptably
delaying shipments.
In reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of
developing a regional air-cargo center, it is important to
differentiate between the integrated air-cargo carriers,
such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, and
Airborne Express, and the more traditional air-cargo
operators, such as Evergreen International, Southern Air
Transport, Zantop, and the scheduled passenger airlines.
Because of the integrated nature of their operations, with
their “self-feeding” network of door-to-door pickup and
delivery services, the integrated air-cargo carriers are not
as dependent upon any one location. It is much easier for
them to relocate to another airport if it makes operational
and economic sense.
The more traditional air-cargo operators, on the other
hand, are much more inter-dependent. The shippers,
forwarders, brokers, consolidators, and individual airlines all depend on each other to put cargo shipments
together at competitive rates and provide the necessary
lift to deliver these shipments to their destinations. No
one element of these traditional operations could be
moved to another airport facility without the other
elements. For the scheduled passenger airlines, this
dependence on location extends even further because
virtually all their cargo, both international and domestic,
moves as belly or combi cargo and must travel from one
passenger hub airport to another until it reaches its
destination.
Data on the volume of cargo carried as all-cargo
versus belly-cargo is not readily available. For those
airports where data was available, the percentages of all22
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Facilities Required
Runways
cargo versus belly cargo varied widely from airport to
airport. Airports which serve as hubs/sorting centers for
integrated air-express operations, such as Memphis and
Ontario, have a high percentage of their cargo volume
carried on all-cargo flights, 61 percent for Memphis and
93 percent for Ontario. In general, airports with a predominantly domestic market served by the integrated
express cargo carriers have about 60 percent of their
cargo volume carried by all-cargo aircraft. However, for
those airports which serve as origin/destination centers,
especially for overseas flights, the percentage of all-cargo
to belly/combi cargo is reversed, 60 percent belly/combi
and 40 percent all-cargo. These latter figures are in line
with the world air-cargo capacity figures in Boeing’s
World Air Cargo Forecast, 60 percent passenger (belly/
combi) and 40 percent freighter.
In order to support a regional air-cargo center, an
airport should provide certain basic facilities.
Given the importance of international operations in
the air-cargo market, the runway should be 10,000 to
12,000 feet long and 150 feet wide and have the necessary
strength to support the take-off of a fully-loaded freighter
on a long-haul, non-stop intercontinental flight. The
operational takeoff length of the runway at Alliance
Airport is 9,600 feet. Stewart International Airport in
New York extended their runway to 12,000 feet to support international operations. Huntsville International
Airport is extending one of their runways from 8,000 feet
to 10,000 feet to accommodate international wide-body
cargo aircraft. Runways and taxiways also need to be
designed with the necessary pavement strength to
support very heavy aircraft. Boeing’s newest cargo plane,
the 747-400F freighter, has a maximum takeoff weight of
870,000 pounds.
Landing Aids
One of air cargo’s most significant attributes is ontime delivery. A regional air-cargo airport should have
the facilities to provide continuing and reliable operations during weather conditions that restrict visibility
during takeoff and landing. These may include an air
traffic control tower (ATCT), an airport surveillance radar
(ASR), and an appropriate instrument landing system
(ILS) and associated landing light systems.
23
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Freight Storage and
Movement
Transportation
Infrastructure
Support Infrastructure
Labor
To receive, store, and distribute cargo, an airport must
have the apron space and cargo buildings necessary to
accommodate the cargo operators, customs service,
brokers, and freight forwarders. These buildings may be
built by the airport authority and leased to the cargo
operators, built by the operators themselves, or they may
be built and leased out by a third-party franchisee.
In order to function as a true regional air-cargo center,
the airport must have convenient access to interstate
highways, preferably both north-south and east-west.
Railheads are also desirable.
All those facilities necessary to support an intensive
cargo operation need to be in place. These include, but
are not limited to, modern high-capacity telephone
trunking and switching systems, environmentally approved waste-disposal systems, and adequate electric
power and water for current and future needs.
Such a facility needs access to a readily available,
reasonably priced, at least semi-skilled labor market. This
labor market should be located relatively close and
should contain sufficient numbers to staff operations at
least in the near-term.
Cost Estimates
New Facilities
It is difficult to develop cost figures for a new airport
without knowing something about the specific airport
site. Construction costs depend a great deal upon local
construction and labor costs, land value, terrain, obstructions, and other factors which can vary widely from site
to site.
Given the problems in developing cost estimates
without knowing the specific site, it is useful to look at
recent examples of construction costs for runways, access
roads, and terminal facilities at airports around the
country.
The Fort Worth Alliance Airport was completed in
1990. According to the Perot Group, the runway, with an
operational takeoff length of 9600 feet, two parallel
taxiways, large terminal area apron, and the service and
access roads, cost $39 million to construct, not including
24
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
land costs. The runway pavement strength is designed to
support an airplane gross weight of 870,000 pounds, the
maximum takeoff weight of Boeing’s newest cargo
plane, the 747-400F freighter. An Instrument Landing
System (ILS), associated landing lights, and FAA tower
will add about $6 or $7 million. A highway interchange
with the nearby interstate highway cost about $6 million
with the associated bridge, ramps, and frontage roads.
(According to the Alabama Highway Department, a
more complex interstate highway interchange being built
to improve access to Huntsville International Airport in
Alabama will cost $17 million.) Access roads (six lane)
beyond the immediate boundary of the airport and
connecting the airport with the interstate interchange
and other public highways cost about $8 million per
mile. Vital infrastructure support systems cost as follows:
waste water treatment plant - $12.5 million; power
supply system - $10 million; telecommunications system - $3.4 million; water supply system - $4.5 million.
The construction cost for the necessary cargo terminal
facilities, including ramp space for the aircraft, buildings
for the handling and temporary storage of cargo, and
loading docks for the trucks that pick up and drop off
cargo, must also be considered. The Huntsville International Intermodal Center reports that a 50,000 square foot
cargo facility completed in April 1990 at Huntsville
International Airport cost approximately $1.6 million. A
much larger 300,000 square foot cargo complex at Washington Dulles International Airport, currently scheduled
for completion in the fall of 1991, will cost nearly $21
million, according to the Washington Airports Task
Force.
It is unlikely that any airport will be built to serve
only as a regional air-cargo center, so facilities will probably be necessary to serve general aviation and other
traffic. In addition to the cargo terminal facilities, an
airport would require at least the minimum operations
and passenger ramp and terminal facilities for general
aviation, business and corporate aircraft, and small
commuter or air-carrier passenger operations. As an
estimate of the cost for a small passenger terminal,
construction of a new 640 foot long, 90 foot wide concourse at Huntsville International Airport will cost about
$12 million, according to the Huntsville Madison County
Airport Authority. This concourse will accommodate
25
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
10 jet aircraft parking positions and four commuter
aircraft parking positions.
A November 18, 1990, newspaper article in the Raleigh, North Carolina, The News and Observer describes
the proposed development of an “air-cargo and manufacturing complex” in North Carolina, much like the regional air-cargo center discussed above, with an adjacent
industrial park. The cost to develop the entire complex,
with “2 two-mile-long runways… surrounded by manufacturing plants and air-cargo firms,” is given as $250 to
$400 million. This probably represents a fair assessment
of the cost to develop any such industrial airport facility
considering the acquisition of property; installation of
road, sewer, water, electrical and other support infrastructure; and construction of an airfield that would
support long-haul international flight operations.
Converting and Improving
an Existing Airport
Costs for converting and improving an existing
airport vary so widely that citing such costs is hardly
instructive. Some of the estimated costs only for runway
and taxiway extensions in various airports, which could
be considered as regional air-cargo centers in the Washington area, are given in Section V. To these costs must be
added all the expenses for infrastructure upgrades, road
access, and so forth. While it is unlikely that upgrades of
existing facilities would be as costly as the construction of
new facilities, the costs can be expected to be substantial.
26
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Case Studies
Fort Worth Alliance
Airport (AFW)
Fort Worth Alliance Airport (Figure 2) is the result of
a successful public/private partnership. A private investment firm, the Perot Group, donated 418 acres as the site
of a new airport adjacent to a planned industrial park.
The airport is owned by the City of Fort Worth, which
developed it with over $40 million in Federal aid for air
traffic control and airport facilities. The project was also
supported by Tarrant and Denton counties, the State of
Texas, the Perot Group, and another private investment
group. The entire project, including support facilities and
vehicles, reportedly cost nearly $250 million.
Alliance is a multi-purpose reliever airport that was
designed and built specifically for the manufacturer,
distributor, and cargo carrier. It is believed to be the first
purpose-built industrial facility that incorporates an
airport with an industrial park and attracts major aviation maintenance and manufacturing companies. Alliance can accommodate all types of aircraft, including the
C-5 Galaxy and Boeing 747-400, in all weather conditions. Alliance has an FAA control tower and two Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) with Approach Light Systems (ALS).
The Alliance facility opened just over 18 months after
ground was broken. Some of the companies committed
to locating at the airport are American Airlines with their
$481 million aircraft maintenance facility (which is
projected to employ 2,500 initially, and more than 4,500
upon completion), a Santa Fe Railway automobile unloading/distribution facility, Ishida Aerospace Manufacturing, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Manufacturers that locate at Alliance will have direct access to taxiways, as well as close proximity to rail and highways.
Alliance Airport opened in early 1990 and is already
operating at the level that was forecasted for the 10-year
point (150,000 to 200,000 operations). Current operations
are mostly general aviation training and some practice
landings from Southwest Airlines. Alliance is, in this
way, relieving and complementing DFW Airport. However, no all-cargo operators have planned operations
there as of December 1990.
27
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FORT WORTH ALLIANCE AIRPORT (AFW)
16
FIGURE 2
34
5,000 ft.
28
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Stewart International
Airport (SWF)
Located in Newburgh/New Windsor, New York,
Stewart International Airport (Figure 3) is a reliever and
cargo airport that was converted from a surplus Air
Force Base. Despite a major land acquisition and improvement program sponsored by New York State, the
airport has been slow to attract traffic. Although turned
over to the State in 1970, the airport was not well-developed or marketed. In 1983, it was taken over by the State
Department of Transportation (NYDOT), which began to
market the airport to serve commercial, cargo, and
corporate, as well as general aviation users. In addition,
the NYDOT developed an industrial park on airport
property to attract large businesses.
Prior to 1983, the State of New York invested $83
million in land acquisition and runway/taxiway improvements, and the Federal Government invested $2.2
million for the runways and taxiways. Since 1983, the
State of New York has invested an additional $35 million,
primarily in developing the industrial park and other
airport lands. The Federal Government has invested $155
million for the Air National Guard Base, $30 million for
the U.S. Postal Service Regional Mail Facility, and $15
million for other improvements on the airport. As of
September 1990, private investment on the airport totalled nearly $100 million. Airport tenants were paying
rents and payments in-lieu-of taxes of about $1 million
per year.
Stewart today is the site of several distribution centers, production plants, and other commercial activities.
Some of the tenants are Anheuser-Busch, American
Express, the Air National Guard, and Cessna. Airborne,
Consolidated Freightways/Emery Worldwide, Federal
Express, the U.S. Postal Service, and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Animal Import Center (largest in the
world) are also located at Stewart. Stewart is a regional
trucking hub for Consolidated Freightways/Emery
operations. The airport is a major employer in the area,
accounting for about 4,300 jobs.
Stewart has a 12,000 foot runway with an instrument
landing system and 9,960 acres of State-owned land
available for airport development. It is the second largest
airport in terms of area in the United States. A new
200,000 square-foot cargo terminal is under construction
on 170 acres at the north end of the runway. Another
250,000 square-foot facility is to be built on the south end.
29
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 3
STEWART INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SWF)
9
Cargo Area
16
Fire
Station
GA Ramp
Passenger Terminal
Army
27
34
5,000 ft.
30
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Unlike Fort Worth/Alliance, Stewart is intended to
attract passenger as well as cargo service. More than two
million people live within a 45 minute drive from
Stewart making it an ideal site for a satellite commercial
service airport for the New York City area. The passenger
terminal can handle 500 passengers an hour, and the
airport has a U.S. customs center for international flights.
Passenger service is seen as a vital supplement to air
cargo. According to an article by Terrence Laughlin,
“Countdown to Takeoff,” in the September 1988 issue of
Hudson Valley magazine, “Nothing will have a greater
effect on increasing Stewart’s cargo load than scheduled
passenger service. Today’s wide-body aircraft can carry
huge amounts of cargo in the belly…The drive for passenger service is, consequently, critical to the growth of
Stewart’s cargo activity.” American Airlines began
scheduled service to Stewart in April 1990, and two other
carriers have followed, although a portion of the service
is by smaller, regional aircraft.
It is arguable whether Stewart is a success as a regional air-cargo center. Despite the advantage of a large
investment by New York State and proximity to the New
York metropolitan area, the airport has had relatively low
activity historically, ranking 512 among U.S. airports in
1988 with 4,171 passengers (on non-scheduled, charter
flights) and accounting for less than 1 percent of the
cargo carried from the region. Currently, there are only a
few all-cargo operations each day. However, several of
Stewart’s air-cargo tenants, including Airborne and
Consolidated Freightways/Emery Worldwide, have
plans to expand their facilities and operations, and
develop regional hubs there. In addition, since April,
when scheduled passenger service began, through
December of 1990, Stewart enplaned 191,971 passengers,
which will place Stewart among the 170 or 180 busiest
U.S. airports in 1990.
31
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
500 ft.
HUNTSVILLE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (HSV)
18L
18R
Main Terminal
8,000 ft.
Air Cargo Apron
36L
1,5oo ft.
FIGURE 4
5,000 ft.
36R
(5000 FT.)
32
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Huntsville International
Airport (HSV)
Huntsville, a regional commuter airport (Figure 4),
and its associated industrial park were completed in
1967. It has two 8,000 foot parallel runways with 5,000
foot separation, permitting simultaneous independent
ILS operations. The east runway is to be extended to
10,000 feet. With 432,000 passenger enplanements in
1988, Huntsville ranked 110th among U.S. airports.
Huntsville International Airport has every intention
of becoming an intermodal cargo center for the south. In
the early 1980’s, the Huntsville-Madison County Airport
Authority decided to go ahead with plans to pursue the
cargo market in order to increase the utilization of the
airport and create jobs. As a direct result of this decision,
the International Intermodal Center was completed in
December 1986, after a phased construction program that
cost about $13 million. Money for the project came from
FAA grants-in-aid under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and from grants by the Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional
Commission, while about one–third of the funds were
raised through airport revenue bonds. The International
Intermodal Center provides services for receiving, transferring, storing, and distributing containerized air, rail,
and truck cargo. While most cargo is rail/truck traffic, a
new air-cargo building was completed in April 1990 to
accommodate more air traffic. And, there are already
plans to expand this facility. Airborne Express, Consolidated Freightways/Emery Worldwide, Burlington
Northern, and Panalpina/Cargolux provide all-cargo
services at the airport. Huntsville handles about 8 million
pounds of cargo annually, with more that 85 percent of
the cargo (by weight) carried by the all-cargo carriers.
Also located at the airport is the Huntsville-Madison
County Jetplex Industrial Park, which, in addition to
many businesses and industries, houses U.S. Customs, a
Free Trade Zone (FTZ), and an industrial bond financing
operation.
The Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority,
which includes the Huntsville International Airport, the
International Intermodal Center, and the Jetplex Industrial Park, is a self-sufficient entity. No tax dollars from
the city, county, State, or Federal Governments are used
to support its operations. Grants and entitlements have
been used for capital improvement projects, and the
additional funds required have been raised through
airport revenue bonds. In an economic impact study
completed for the year 1988, the airport and businesses
33
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
and industries located on airport property accounted for
over 5,200 jobs, with an additional 6,500 airport-related
jobs located off the airport site itself. Since the study was
completed, the Airport Authority estimates that the
number of jobs has increased by 10 to 20 percent.
34
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
IV — Analysis of Air-Cargo Operations
Cargo Operations and
Their Contribution to
Delay
In analyzing cargo operations and the extent of their
contribution (or non-contribution) to delay, it is important to differentiate between two types of cargo operations, belly-or combi-cargo and all-cargo. Belly cargo
carried on passenger aircraft and cargo carried on combination cargo/passenger (combi) aircraft are considered
passenger operations because these operations will
continue whether cargo is carried or not. Cargo operations actually contribute to delay only if they are flown
by all-cargo aircraft during peak hours. The approach of
this study has been to consider only these all-cargo
operations in the delay analysis. This has created problems in data gathering, because many airports do not
maintain records of the number of flights by all-cargo
aircraft.
Table 2 shows the U.S. airports with the greatest
volume of cargo traffic (in total freight tonnage) and also
includes selected airports with significant cargo operations, such as the major and regional hubs for the integrated express carriers. The information in the table is
based on data from calendar year 1988, because that is
the latest year for which published data is available. The
table also includes the percentage of all-cargo to total
operations for the limited number of airports that reported all-cargo operations as a discrete category. At
those relatively uncongested airports that are hubs for
the integrated express cargo carriers, all-cargo operations
represent only about 15 percent of the total aircraft
operations. At other airports, all-cargo operations are
normally less than 4 percent of the total. Even at John F.
Kennedy International Airport, which is number one in
total cargo tonnage, all-cargo operations are only 6 percent of total operations.
Table 3 shows the airports in the U.S. with the highest
percentage of operations delayed 15 minutes or more.
The three New York area airports are among the top five
airports in terms of aircraft delay. Of the Washington,
D.C., area airports, only Washington National appears on
the table. (And, as discussed below, Washington National
does not have any all-cargo operations.)
Table 4 compares the statistics from Tables 2 and 3. It
is interesting to note that, of the top ten airports with the
highest percentage of delay, 6 are in the top ten in cargo
35
36
Stewart Intl, NY
Bangor Intl, ME
SWF
BGR
Planned as east coast cargo reliever
CF/Emery & Airborne regional hubs; planned as NYC reliever
Fed Ex large-cargo hub, formerly the Flying Tigers hub
Major Washington, DC, area airport
Main Fed Ex hub, #24 in operations & #81 in total cargo worldwide
Major New York area airport
Airborne hub, privately owned
DHL hub, #40 in operations & #48 in cargo worldwide
Major Washington, DC, area airport
Major Washington, DC, area airport
Fed Ex/UPS rgnl hubs, #15 in operations & #38 in cargo
#4 in total operations worldwide
UPS rgnl hub, #12 in operations & #33 in cargo worldwide
Air-Sea-Land intermodal center
CF Air Freight, Arrow, FedEx rgnl hub, #31 in world cargo
UPS rgnl hub, #28 in total cargo worldwide
#6 in operations & #25 in total cargo worldwide
Burlington Air Exp hub, #22 in total cargo worldwide
#11 in operations & #21 in total cargo worldwide
Fed Ex rgnl hub, #18 in total cargo worldwide
Emery hub, #16 in total cargo worldwide
#8 in operations & #13 in total cargo worldwide
#2 in operations & #12 in total cargo worldwide
UPS hub and #9 in total cargo enplaned/deplaned worldwide
#6 in total cargo enplaned/deplaned worldwide
#1 in operations & #5 in total cargo worldwide
#4 in total operations & cargo enplaned/deplaned worldwide
#1 in total cargo enplaned/deplaned worldwide
Ranked by Cargo Tonnage
527
18,041
29,824
64,390
64,775
106,188
109,623
143,696
145,747
166,443
189,424
201,601
219,535
227,200
236,242
259,775
290,387
318,982
320,156
454,681
500,031
575,249
598,365
701,502
740,280
906,928
1,099,522
1,299,104
Metric Tons
a) Enplaned tons only.
b) Estimate provided by Airborne Traffic Management; FAA/RSPA Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers.
Washington National
Rickenbacker ANGB, OH
LCK
Memphis Intl
MEM
DCA
Wilmington, OH
Greater Cincinnati Intl
CVG
New York-LaGuardia
Baltimore-Washington Intl
BWI
LGA
Washington-Dulles Intl
IAD
ILN
Dallas-Ft Worth Intl
Metro. Oakland Intl, CA
OAK
Philadelphia Intl
DFW
Seattle-Tacoma Intl
Denver-Stapleton Intl
DEN
PHL
Ft Wayne Muni, IN
FWA
SEA
Boston-Logan Intl, MA
BOS
Indianapolis Intl
New York-Newark Intl
EWR
IND
Dayton Intl, OH
DAY
Ontario Intl, CA
San Francisco Intl
SFO
ONT
Sandiford Field, KY
Atlanta-Hartsfield Intl
ATL
Miami Intl
MIA
SDF
Los Angeles Intl
Chicago-O’Hare Intl
ORD
NY-John F. Kennedy Intl
LAX
Airport
JFK
Total Freight
581
19,881
32,866
70,958
71,382
117,019
120,805
158,353
160,613
183,420
208,745
222,164
241,928
250,374
260,339
286,272
320,006
351,518
352,812
501,058
551,034
633,924
659,398
773,055
815,789
999,435
1,211,673
1,431,613
Short Tons
Total Freight
a)
128,436
81,797
44,000
322,403
353,091
362,072
21,894
272,695
307,879
231,113
400,188
675,060
414,902
315,944
220,234
138,554
503,095
121,398
414,968
370,331
214,391
452,005
778,779
159,958
364,476
803,453
622,427
304,490
Ops
Total
ENPLANED AND DEPLANED FREIGHT AND MAIL, INCLUDING EXPRESS — YEAR ENDING 12/31/88
ID
TABLE 2
b)
272
3,223
11,000
54,706
359
21,675
15,484
8,100
7,064
19,786
14,128
9,001
12,857
32,488
25,476
54,670
15,356
18,343
Ops
All Cargo
0.21%
3.94%
25.00%
15.49%
0.10%
99.00%
5.68%
2.63%
3.06%
4.94%
11.64%
2.17%
3.47%
15.15%
15.93%
15.00%
1.91%
6.02%
Ops
% Cargo
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
tonnage. Looking only at this relationship, one might
assume that delays could be reduced by relocating the
cargo activity. However, as will be explained in the
following paragraphs, this is not necessarily true.
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGE OF OPERATIONS DELAYED 15 MINUTES OR MORE
Percentage
Airports
Newark International
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
9.2
13.8
6.5
6.7
10.3
Chicago O’Hare International
4.1
5.6
4.6
5.5
10.2
New York La Guardia
9.2
8.9
6.5
5.2
9.4
San Francisco International
3.4
5.3
6.2
6.3
7.0
New York Kennedy
6.1
7.0
6.5
5.3
6.0
Boston Logan International
6.1
7.3
4.8
3.7
3.0
St. Louis-Lambert International
4.6
4.4
1.6
2.7
2.8
Denver Stapleton International
4.6
3.2
3.7
3.7
2.6
Dallas-Fort Worth International
1.7
2.6
2.0
1.4
2.4
Atlanta Hartsfield International
6.2
6.5
6.2
3.5
2.3
Philadelphia International
0.9
2.0
3.7
2.6
2.0
Detroit Metropolitan
2.1
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
Los Angeles International
0.8
1.1
3.3
1.7
1.0
Washington National
2.0
3.2
2.3
1.5
1.0
Minneapolis International
2.2
3.9
0.7
1.4
0.7
Houston International
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.7
Pittsburgh International
1.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
Cleveland Hopkins International
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.2
Miami International
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
Kansas City International
0.3
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
Fort Lauderdale International
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
Las Vegas McCarran International
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
Source: ATOMS Data
37
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF RANKINGS IN DELAY AND CARGO TONNAGE
Delay Ranking
Airport
Cargo Tonnage
1
2
3
4
5
Newark International
San Francisco International
Chicago O’Hare
New York John F. Kennedy
New York La Guardia
9
7
3
1
30
6
7
8
9
10
Boston Logan
Denver Stapleton
Atlanta Hartsfield
St. Louis International
Philadelphia International
10
13
6
35
18
38
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Analysis of All-Cargo
Operations at New YorkArea Airports
General
Tables 7 through 12 (see Appendix A) tabulate the
number of cargo operations, general aviation operations,
and all other aircraft operations, broken down by hour,
for the three airports in the New York area for a typical
two-day period. These hourly traffic figures were developed based on the Official Airline Guide and historical
data provided by the FAA Central Flow Control Facility.
In order to more easily visualize the actual impact by
hour of all-cargo operations, Figures 5, 7, and 9 compare
these operations to the airports’ nominal hourly capacity,
under both visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight
rules (IFR) conditions. The nominal airport capacity
figures were obtained from the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) database maintained by
the FAA. They are intended only as a gauge for comparison against current hourly traffic figures. An airport’s
actual capacity varies during the day and depends on a
number of factors, including the runway configuration
that is being used and the mix of aircraft types taking off
and landing.
39
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 5
TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
90
Operations per Hour
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
NOVEMBER 29, 1990
90
Operations per Hour
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
All other Operations
GA Operations
Cargo Operations
VFR Hourly Capacity *
IFR Hourly Capacity *
* Theoretical capacity taken from the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) database
maintained by the FAA.
40
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK)
JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (JFK)
13R
13L
NORTH
PASSENGER
TERMINAL
CONTROL
TOWER
31R
4L
31L
4R
(5000 FT.)
41
22L
INTERNATIONAL ARRIVAL
TERMINAL
22R
FIGURE 6
John F. Kennedy International Airport (Figure 6)
exceeded its nominal VFR capacity of 82 operations per
hour during three hours on 11/28/90 and during one
hour on 11/29/90 (Figure 5). Cargo operations do contribute to exceeding capacity in those hours, but, as the
graph shows, this contribution is slight. Just over 2 percent of the total 90 operations at the busiest hour are due
to all-cargo aircraft, about the same percentage as general
aviation. This means that, at the busiest hour, there were
only two all-cargo operations. Of the four times JFK’s VFR
capacity was exceeded, there was a total of only three allcargo operations. About 90 percent of the cargo operations are scheduled for hours when the airport has ample
capacity in good weather and bad.
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 7
TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT LA GUARDIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
90
Operations per Hour
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
NOVEMBER 29, 1990
80
Operations per Hour
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
All other Operations
GA Operations
Cargo Operations
VFR Hourly Capacity *
IFR Hourly Capacity *
* Theoretical capacity taken from the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) database
maintained by the FAA.
42
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
LaGuardia Airport (LGA)
31
LA GUARDIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LGA)
22
AIR CARRIER
MAINTENANCE
& BASE FACILITIES
TERMINAL
BUILDING
AIR CARRIER
MAINTENANCE
& BASE FACILITIES
13
Closed Runway
4
FIGURE 8
LaGuardia Airport (Figure 8) exceeded its VFR capacity of 62 operations per hour six times on 11/28/90 and
eight times on 11/29/90 (Figure 7). Since LaGuardia has
only one all-cargo flight per day, at 0600, cargo operations were not a factor in adding to congestion.
GA TERMINAL
GA MAINTENANCE
& BASE FACILITIES
( 5000 FT )
43
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 9
TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
140
Operations per Hour
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
NOVEMBER 29, 1990
100
90
Operations per Hour
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
All other Operations
GA Operations
Cargo Operations
VFR Hourly Capacity *
IFR Hourly Capacity *
* Theoretical capacity taken from the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) database
maintained by the FAA.
44
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Newark International (EWR)
NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (EWR)
GA
PARKING
NORTH
TERMINAL
BUILDING
22L
29
11
R
22
FIGURE 10
Newark International (Figure 10) exceeded its VFR
capacity of 81 operations per hour three times on
11/28/90 and four times on 11/20/90 (Figure 9). Allcargo operations contribute to exceeding capacity, but
this contribution averages about three percent, less than
general aviation. At the busiest hour (1700, 11/28/90),
there were only two all-cargo operations. At their worst
(0900, 11/29/90), all-cargo operations represented 6 percent of the total operations, or 5 of 84 operations. About
60 percent of the cargo operations at Newark are scheduled for hours when there is ample capacity in good
weather and bad.
CONTROL
TOWER
TERMINALS
4L
4R
5,000 FT.
45
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
In summary, air-cargo operations are only a small
part of the delay and congestion problem at JFK and
Newark airports. Any benefits in terms of delay-cost
savings that would result from diverting all-cargo operations to another airport would probably be far outweighed by the cost of duplicating the tremendous cargo
infrastructure that has developed there. A large part of
the cargo is carried in the baggage holds of airliners and
will remain at the busiest passenger airports. Several of
the cargo station managers interviewed pointed out that
New York remains the center of many businesses and
industries that depend on air cargo, like the garment
industry and the diamond markets. Cargo operations
generate essential revenue at airports that must remain
open 24 hours a day during the hours that air-carrier
passenger operations are at their lowest levels. Both
Newark and JFK are expanding their ground-side cargo
facilities in order to meet the future demand of the increased cargo operations they expect and are actively
seeking.
46
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
V — Air-cargo Operations in the
Washington, D.C., Area
Description of Washington
Air-Cargo Operations
Washington Dulles
International Airport (IAD)
The Dulles catchment area (from Pennsylvania to
North Carolina) generated over $5.8 billion in air exports
in 1989, according to a Virginia Department of Aviation
study. Dulles (Figure 11) has grown to become the seventh largest U.S. gateway airport for nonstop passenger
flights to Europe. This increase in nonstop flights leads to
an increase in passenger travel, and more importantly, an
increase in cargo capacity and revenues for the region.
With the transfer of Washington Dulles and Washington National Airports from the Federal Government to
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1987,
a $1.5 billion capital development program was initiated.
The $800 million program at Dulles includes a new
international arrivals building, terminal expansion, and
parking and taxiway improvements. Ultimately, two
additional runways are planned for construction. With
these improvements, the Authority estimates that Dulles
will be able to handle up to 700,000 takeoffs and landings
per year, making it one of the busiest airports in the
world. Passenger load will have increased from 500,000
passengers in 1962 to 20 million by the year 2000. While
domestic passenger travel increased 7.3 percent at Dulles
last year, international travel jumped nearly 15 percent —
double the national average. Since cargo traffic follows
passenger traffic, the Washington area can expect an
infusion of capital from increased trade and investments.
According to a recent study by the Virginia Department of Aviation, Dulles air cargo has averaged a 24 percent annual growth in cargo tonnage since 1982, making
it the fastest-growing East Coast gateway for air freight.
The airport currently handles about 370 million pounds
annually. The study projects continued growth for domestic air freight due to U.S economic strength, new air
freight services, and the growth of facsimile and other
electronic communications. The international air freight
47
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 11
WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (IAD)
19R
W
3
W1
3500 ft
4
W
W
5
19L
E10
W
E9
T5
T3
T1
T2
T4
W
7
E2
E1
6
CONTROL TOWER
8
W
T1
T2
12
K
W1
MIDFIELD TERMINAL RAMP
L
N
P
E1
E4
W2
R6
W
8
E6
00
1L
E1
E8
30
E7
W2
30
N1
W1
30
-4
N3
N2
E5
29R
0f
t
N5
N4
E3
11L
N1
1R
5,000 FT
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT (DCA)
15
18
INTERIM TERMINAL
GA
PARKING
GA
MAINTENANCE
GA/COMMUTER
TERMINAL
21
FIGURE 12
NORTH
TERMINAL
TERMINAL
BUILDING
33
SOUTH HANGERS
GA PARKING
3
36
48
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
business is expected to grow at a rate equal to or exceeding the last five years due to expansion in world trade,
new international routes from Dulles, and the ability of
combination, or combi carriers (passenger and freight) to
compete effectively with freight-only carriers.
By the fall of 1991, Cargo Building #5 at Dulles will be
completed. This building will make a radical difference,
tripling the airport’s capacity to handle air freight. It will
include complete, state-of-the-art services, storage and
office space, refrigeration for perishable goods, loading
docks for eight large aircraft, and a staging area for trucks
to expedite loading and unloading. Included will be a
centralized customs facility with a drive-through design
to expedite cargo transfer.
Washington Dulles is actively seeking more cargo
traffic. According to the former president of the Washington Area Cargo Authority (WACA), “Dulles is a major hub
with a very significant untapped cargo potential.” And,
the president of the Washington Airports Task Force says
that “Collectively we’re going to make Dulles a major
world cargo center. There is a need for a major midAtlantic cargo hub, and Dulles is a natural to fulfill that
function.”
According to the Task Force, Dulles is operating near
the maximum capacity of its current cargo facilities, but,
when the new facility is ready in the fall of 1991, there
will be room to more than triple its cargo operations. (It
should be noted that at Dulles the factor that determines
cargo capacity is the warehouse/cargo sorting space
available, not the runway or airspace capacity.) All-cargo
operations at Dulles average 50 to 60 per week. Most allcargo operations are conducted during off-peak hours.
Washington National
Airport (DCA)
Air-cargo facilities at National (Figure 12) include
three buildings with more than 60,000 square feet of
office, cargo, parking and storage space. The largest
facilities are operated by United Airlines. Other air
freight operations at the airport are conducted by American, Northwest, TWA, Delta, USAir and Eastern. U.S.
Postal Service mail is the predominant cargo item leaving
from and arriving at National, averaging over 8 million
pounds a month. All the cargo carried from National is
either belly or combi cargo. There are no all-cargo operations at this airport. Only one all-cargo flight was recorded in 1988.
49
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BWI)
15R
Cargo Area
10
Passenger
Terminal
35
22
00
ft.
15L
33R
4
28
FIGURE 13
33L
5,000 ft.
50
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Baltimore/Washington
International Airport (BWI)
Baltimore/Washington International Airport (Figure 13) reported an increase last year of more than 2 percent in air-cargo volume, handling 244 million pounds.
The airport has 330,000 square feet of cargo facilities on
more than 30 acres.
BWI is also actively seeking additional cargo traffic.
According to the manager of cargo development at BWI,
the airport has always been one of the Nation’s most
progressive airports in the area of cargo. The airport’s
proximity to Interstate 95 and to the Port of Baltimore are
advantageous to both shippers and consignees. About
10 percent of the cargo handled by BWI is air/sea merchandise, utilizing both airline and ship transportation.
This special service meets the speed and handling requirements of shipments such as machine and air parts.
New to BWI this year is KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
which uses the new, extended-range Boeing 747-400. This
jumbo jet can carry 295 passengers and crewmembers and up to 70,000 pounds of freight in a combi
configuration. The ability to haul cargo in the rear of the
main deck of the aircraft allows the plane to carry oversize items not suitable for other aircraft (specifically those
which depend upon belly cargo). Of interest is the intention of KLM to expand its capacity to export American
livestock.
At present, according to the airport’s Planning Office,
BWI is operating at about 90 percent of the capacity of
their existing cargo facilities, and they are planning a
large expansion of air freight facilities which will provide
more direct ramp access for all-cargo aircraft. There are
an average of 150 all-cargo operations at BWI each week.
These all-cargo operations are ordinarily scheduled at
off-peak hours.
51
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 14
TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT WASHINGTON DULLES
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
140
Operations per Hour
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
NOVEMBER 29, 1990
140
Operations per Hour
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
All other Operations
GA Operations
Cargo Operations
VFR Hourly Capacity *
IFR Hourly Capacity *
* Theoretical capacity taken from the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) database
maintained by the FAA.
52
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Effects of Air-Cargo
Operations on Congestion
and Delay
General
Tables 13 through 18 (see Appendix A) tabulate the
number of cargo operations, general aviation operations,
and all other aircraft operations, broken down by hour,
for the three airports in the Washington, D.C., area for a
typical two-day period. Again, to more easily visualize
the actual impact by hour of all-cargo operations, Figures
14 through 16 compare these operations to the airports’
nominal capacity, under both VFR and IFR conditions. Aircargo operations do not contribute significantly to delay
at the Washington, D.C., area airports. All-cargo operations are scheduled predominantly at off-peak hours at
both Dulles and Baltimore/Washington, between 2200
hours and 0800 hours at Dulles and 2100 hours and 0800
at Baltimore/Washington. No all-cargo operations are
conducted at National.
World air-cargo operations are projected to double by
the end of the century, according to Boeing’s World Air
Cargo Forecast. Even at these levels, the airports in the
Washington area will still be operating under their capacity for cargo. And, there will continue to be a great deal of
unused capacity at Dulles and Baltimore/Washington
International, where the airport authorities are actively
seeking more cargo operations.
Washington Dulles
International Airport (IAD)
Only once in the observed two-day period (Figure 14)
do hourly operations at Dulles even exceed its rated
capacity of 87 operations per hour for IFR conditions
(which were not in effect on the date indicated). This was
during the 1600 hour, 11/28/90, when 94 flights arrived
or departed. No all-cargo operations were recorded
during this period. However, there were 25 general
aviation flights in that hour. Dulles’ capacity under VFR
conditions is 119 operations per hour.
According to the Washington Dulles International
Airport Capacity Plan, October 1990, produced by the FAA
and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, an
annual demand of 450,000 operations represents a daily
demand of 1,406 operations and a peak-hour demand of
117 operations. (These figures were generated by a capacity/delay computer model to support the Capacity
Plan.)
53
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
TABLE 5
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Year
Actual
Total
Operations
All-cargo
Operations
1985
1988
198,000
241,000
Forecast
Assuming the percentage of all-cargo operations
reported in 1988 (Table 2) remains constant at 3.06%
1990
1995
2000
2005
236,000
408,000
452,000
490,000
8,048
12,485
13,382
14,994
Source for actual and forecast total operations: FAA-APO-90-6, Terminal Area Forecasts FY 1990-2005, July 1990.
54
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
The FAA’s Terminal Area Forecasts FY 1990-2005 estimates that Dulles will reach this level of operations about
the year 2000. For Dulles, this peak-hour demand of 117
operations is still below the VFR hourly capacity of 119
operations (see Figures 12a and 12b) of the present
airport configuration. Current plans for Dulles include
the construction of one, and perhaps two, additional
runways before FY 2000. This, and other capacity improvements planned for Dulles, will further increase the
airport’s capacity.
By 2005, total operations at Dulles are projected to
reach 490,000 per year (see Table 5). The FAA does not
forecast cargo operations, but, assuming that they remain
a relatively constant percentage of total operations, allcargo aircraft operations will more than double by 2005,
from just over 7,000 operations per year in 1988 to nearly
15,000 per year. This constant percentage may result in a
high estimate, because most of Dulles’ growth in cargo
has been from belly and combi cargo, and this trend is
expected to continue. On the other hand, the new cargo
facilities scheduled for completion in the fall of 1991 may
attract enough all-cargo carriers to reach 15,000 annual
operations by 2005. In any case, 15,000 all-cargo operations per year represents approximately 41 operations
per day, or an average of just under two per hour. Since
all-cargo aircraft are expected to continue to operate
predominantly at night, or during off-peak hours, this
level of daily operations should not become a significant
factor in delay and congestion at Dulles.
55
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 15
TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT WASHINGTON NATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
80
Operations per Hour
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
NOVEMBER 29, 1990
80
Operations per Hour
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
All other Operations
GA Operations
Cargo Operations
VFR Hourly Capacity *
IFR Hourly Capacity *
* Theoretical capacity taken from the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) database
maintained by the FAA.
56
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Washington National
Airport (DCA)
Washington National Airport exceeded its IFR capacity of 60 operations per hour four times on 11/28/90 and
six times on 11/29/90 (Figure 15). Cargo operations were
not a factor, since National has no all-cargo flights, but it
is affected by general aviation. National’s capacity under
VFR conditions is 73 operations per hour.
Baltimore/Washington
International Airport (BWI)
Baltimore/Washington International Airport exceeded its hourly capacity of 70 operations for IFR conditions only once, during the 1600 hour, 11/29/90 (Figure 16). There were 71 flights arriving or departing in
that hour, with no all-cargo operations and 8 general
aviation flights. BWI’s capacity under VFR conditions is
125 operations per hour.
According to the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecasts
FY 1990-2005, BWI will reach an annual demand of
425,000 operations about the year 2000 (see Table 6). This
represents a 40 percent increase in annual operations
over 1988 and a 34 percent increase over 1990. But, with a
peak hour demand of only 73 operations on a typical
day, November 29, 1990, the airport can absorb this
increase within its present configuration, which has a VFR
hourly capacity of 125 operations. Like Dulles, Baltimore/Washington International has plans for the construction of one additional runway before the year 2000
which will further increase the airport’s capacity.
By 2005, total operations at BWI will have reached
479,000 per year (see Table 6). Following the same assumption used with Dulles, that all-cargo operations will
remain a relatively constant percentage of total operations, all-cargo flights to and from BWI will increase by
about 55 percent by 2005, from 8,100 operations per year
to nearly 12,500 per year. This forecast level of operations,
based on a steady rate of annual increase, is actually
higher than the forecast provided by the Planning Office
at BWI. Based on a decreasing percentage of all-cargo to
total operations, BWI expects an annual level of all-cargo
operations of 10,100 by 2005. But, even at 12,500 operations per year, all-cargo operations will represent only 35
operations per day, or an average of less than 1.5 per
hour. Again, since all-cargo aircraft are expected to
continue operating predominantly at night or during offpeak hours, this level of daily operations should not
become a significant factor in delay and congestion at
BWI.
57
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 16
TOTAL HOURLY OPERATIONS AT BALTIMORE WASHINGTON
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
140
Operations per Hour
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
NOVEMBER 29, 1990
140
Operations per Hour
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time of Day (hours)
All other Operations
GA Operations
Cargo Operations
VFR Hourly Capacity *
IFR Hourly Capacity *
* Theoretical capacity taken from the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) database
maintained by the FAA.
58
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
TABLE 6
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Year
Actual
Total
Operations
All-cargo
Operations
1985
1988
284,000
304,000
Forecast
Assuming the percentage of all-cargo operations
reported in 1988 (Table 2) remains constant at 2.6%
1990
1995
2000
2005
318,000
370,000
425,000
479,000
8,268
9,620
11,050
12,454
Source for actual and forecast total operations: FAA-APO-90-6, Terminal Area Forecasts FY 1990-2005, July 1990.
Alternative Locations for
Washington, D.C., Regional
Air-Cargo Facility
Several potential locations for a regional air-cargo
facility in the Washington, D.C., area were investigated.
One of the criteria used in searching for alternatives was
that any site selected should be outside the terminal area
airspace of the current three major airports in the Washington area (National, Dulles, and BWI). This was done to
avoid the possibility of interference with and delay of
aircraft on approach to or departure from these airports.
Tipton Army Airfield (FME)
Fort Meade, MD
Tipton (Figure 17) is a part of an approximately 9,000
acre portion of Fort Meade that has been earmarked for
closure. However, current plans are to turn about 7,000
acres of the site over to the Park Service, sell about 1,000
acres to private developers for residential and commercial uses, and develop approximately 400 acres that
include the airfield into a regional general aviation
facility. The Army has used the airfield to support helicopter and light aircraft operations. Given the current
plans for the land surrounding the airfield and the
proximity of the National Security Agency and other
parts of Fort Meade which will not be closed, there is not
sufficient land available at Tipton to support a regional
59
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
TIPTON ARMY AIRFIELD (FME)
FIGURE 18
MARTIN STATE AIRPORT (MTN)
FIGURE 19
WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT (W16)
28
10
FIGURE 17
32
14
32
14
60
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
air-cargo facility that could accommodate international
flight operations. In addition, a portion of the airfield
floods about twice a year. Finally, Tipton is located between National and BWI airports, within the proposed
Tri-Area TCA, and immediately adjacent to the proposed
VFR flyway through the new TCA.
Martin State Airport (MTN)
Martin State (Figure 18) is located northeast of Baltimore on Chesapeake Bay. Its only runway is nearly 7,000
feet long, but there is very little room for expansion.
Chesapeake Bay is at the south end of the runway, and a
highway and rail line are located at the north end. The
area around the airfield is already developed, so that
noise restrictions would likely become a factor. Noise
abatement procedures are already in effect. Finally, the
airfield itself is located in a 100-year flood plain, and the
Chesapeake Bay end of the airfield is a part of the wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Commission. Efforts to develop Martin
State would likely run into environmental hurdles that
would require years of litigation.
Winchester Regional Airport
(W16)
Winchester Regional Airport (Figure 19), in northwestern Virginia, is in the middle of a capital improvement program that will include a 1,000 foot runway and
taxiway extension, for a total runway length of 5,400 feet.
This will include upgraded lighting and navigation aids
to improve instrument approaches for all-weather operations, a new general aviation passenger terminal, and
new hangar, parking, and service area. The Airport
Authority sees the airport as a major corporate airport,
supporting corporate and business aircraft (including
jet), as well as recreational and general aviation aircraft. A
commuter airline has expressed an interest in operating
in and out of Winchester, and the airport could easily
support a light cargo operation. However, although there
is room for additional runway extension and widening,
the downtown area of Winchester is only two miles from
the end of the runway in the direction over which aircraft
normally depart. Noise restrictions could become a
problem, particularly for large jet cargo aircraft conducting operations at night.
61
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
FIGURE 20
MARTINSBURG EASTERN WVA REGIONAL AIRPORT (MRB)
26
17
8
35
HAGERSTOWN WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT (HGR)
9
Control Tower
Hangers
2
20
FIGURE 21
Army Hanger
Hangers
Fire
Station
27
62
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Martinsburg Eastern West
Virginia Regional Airport
(MRB)
Martinsburg Airport (Figure 20) is located to the
south of Martinsburg, West Virginia, just off U.S. Route
11, near Interstate Highway 81. It is 35 air miles from
Washington Dulles International Airport, 80 miles from
Washington, D.C., and 90 miles from Baltimore. The
existing east-west runway is approximately 7,000 feet
long and is ILS-equipped. The north-south runway is
5,000 feet long. Because U.S. Route 11 borders part of the
west side of the airport, the west end of the east-west
runway could only be extended about 500 feet without
relocating the highway. However, there is ample land
available to the east, permitting the extension of the
runway to 11,000 feet. Martinsburg is one of the airports
still under consideration for a large United Airlines
maintenance facility.
The airport authority has learned that it would cost
about $2.0 million for every 1,000 feet of runway and
taxiway extension. Thus, extending the east-west runway and parallel taxiway from 7,000 to 11,000 feet would
cost $8 to $10 million. The airport authority is developing
an adjacent business and industrial park. In the spring of
1991, the State of West Virginia plans to begin construction of a freeway interchange from Interstate 81 that will
provide improved access to the business park and the
airport. According to the airport authority, any necessary
cargo facilities could be funded and built by the city and
county, and then provided to the cargo operators on a 25to 30-year leaseback. Alternatively, they could be built by
the cargo operators themselves. For international operations, free customs service is available, with prior notice,
from the customs office at the Virginia Inland Port located about 30 miles away near Front Royal, Virginia.
Hagerstown Washington
County Regional Airport
(HGR)
Hagerstown Airport (Figure 21) is located north of
Hagerstown, Maryland, approximately 75 miles from
Baltimore, Maryland, and 75 miles from Washington,
D.C. The existing east-west runway is 5,450 feet long,
and the north-south runway is about 3,500 feet long. The
east-west runway is ILS-equipped.
The airport authority has already acquired about 95
acres of land east of the east-west runway, and the Airport Master Plan includes a phased series of extensions
to the runway and taxiway on this land. Extending the
runway to 6,100 feet would cost about $3.5 million.
Going beyond this length will require a fairly extensive
project to tunnel U.S. Highway 11 under the runway.
63
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Extending the runway to 7,000 feet would cost about $23
million, and an additional 1,000 feet would bring the total
to $45 million. There is additional farm land available
that could be acquired to further extend the runway and
taxiway to 10,000 – 12,000 feet. Runway costs for this
additional length would not be quite so expensive, since
the land would not require as much fill and grading. The
airport authority is also developing an adjacent business
and industrial park, part of which would provide an
excellent site for cargo facilities and taxiway access to the
runway.
64
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
VI — Findings
shared. Many major airports actively
encourage cargo, because it generates
airport revenue and additional jobs.
E. There are no models of all-cargo, or
primarily cargo, airports that could be
considered successful at this time, other
than the regional and hub sorting facilities of the integrated and small-package,
express carriers. Because of the integrated, “self-feeding” nature of their
operations, these carriers are not as
dependent upon any one location.
F. Multi-use reliever airports, such as Fort
Worth Alliance in Texas or Huntsville
International in Alabama, are more likely
to be useful and successful than singlepurpose, air-cargo airports. Stewart
International in New York has a much
better chance to become a successful
airport now that several air carriers have
begun scheduled passenger service
there.
G. Joint-use agreements at military airfields
or conversion of surplus, former military
airfields may offer some of the best, leastcost alternatives for multi-use reliever
airports. Military runways are usually
long enough and strong enough to
support large jet aircraft, and most of the
necessary infrastructure is already in
place.
A. It is appropriate that cargo operations
be collocated with passenger operations at the busier metropolitan area
airports. More than half of all air
cargo is carried as belly cargo on
scheduled passenger aircraft. To try
to isolate cargo from passenger
operations would be difficult and
inefficient.
B. All-cargo aircraft operations add little
to air traffic congestion and delay at
busy air-carrier airports. All-cargo
flights represent a relatively small
percentage of the take-offs and
landings at these airports, and most
occur at night or during other offpeak hours.
C. Relocating cargo operations to separate regional air-cargo airports would
be expensive and have a negligible
effect on efforts to improve capacity
at major metropolitan area airports.
The FAA and the aviation industry
must continue to pursue other alternatives to enhance the capacity of the
national airport system.
D. Cargo operations require the same
expensive airport facilities, including
long runways, highway access, and
support infrastructure, as passenger
operations. These facilities are best
65
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
66
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
Appendix A — Tabulation of Hourly
Operations
Table 7
Arrivals and departures by hour at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on 11/28/90 .............................68
Table 8
Arrivals and departures by hour at John F. Kennedy Int’l Airport on 11/29/90 .............................69
Table 9
Arrivals and departures by hour at LaGuardia Airport on 11/28/90 ................................................70
Table 10
Arrivals and departures by hour at LaGuardia Airport on 11/29/90 ................................................71
Table 11
Arrivals and departures by hour at Newark International Airport on 11/28/90 .............................72
Table 12
Arrivals and departures by hour at Newark International Airport on 11/29/90 .............................73
Table 13
Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington Dulles Int’l Airport 11/28/90 ..............................74
Table 14
Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington Dulles Int’l Airport 11/29/90 ..............................75
Table 15
Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington National Airport 11/28/90...................................76
Table 16
Arrivals and departures by hour at Washington National Airport 11/29/90...................................77
Table 17
Arrivals and departures by hour at Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport on 11/28/90 ...................78
Table 18
Arrivals and departures by hour at Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport 11/29/90 ........................79
67
68
0
15
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
2000
2300
0
1900
2
0
0
1800
2
1
2
1
1700
2200
2
1600
0
2
0
3
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2100
0
1
1400
0
1300
1500
0
0
1100
1200
1
0
0900
1000
0
3
0500
0800
0
0400
4
0
0300
2
1
0200
0700
1
0100
0600
1
354
5
7
15
20
20
27
41
48
57
29
14
6
12
5
6
15
12
8
5
0
1
1
0
0
388
5
9
15
20
20
29
44
51
58
31
14
9
13
5
9
17
14
12
8
0
1
2
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
20
2
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
3
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
353
2
18
11
13
28
56
45
38
11
8
7
16
7
22
32
19
16
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
386
4
20
13
13
29
56
45
39
13
9
10
19
8
25
33
21
19
4
2
2
0
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
39
2
4
2
0
1
0
1
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
4
5
5
1
0
1
2
1
28
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
3
3
6
1
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
707
7
25
26
33
48
83
86
86
68
37
21
22
19
27
38
34
28
10
5
1
1
1
0
1
774
9
29
28
33
49
85
89
90
71
40
24
28
21
30
42
38
33
16
10
2
1
2
2
2
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
5.04%
22.22%
13.79%
7.14%
0
2.04%
0
1.12%
2.22%
4.23%
0
0
0
4.76%
0
4.76%
5.26%
12.12%
31.25%
50.00%
50.00%
0
50.00%
100.00%
50.00%
of OPS
CARGO %
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON 11/28/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 7
3.62%
0
0
0
0
0
2.35%
2.25%
2.22%
0
7.50%
12.50%
21.43%
4.76%
10.00%
4.76%
5.26%
3.03%
6.25%
0
0
0
0
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
4
1
0600
0700
69
2000
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1900
11
0
1800
1
2
0
0
1700
21
1
1600
1
2300
0
1500
2
1
0
1
1400
3
0
1300
0
0
2200
0
1200
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2100
1
0
1100
0
4
0500
1000
0
0400
0
1
0300
1
1
0200
0900
1
0100
0800
1
355
4
5
16
20
18
24
26
45
63
36
17
4
12
10
8
14
20
5
7
0
0
1
0
0
387
4
8
16
21
18
24
28
47
65
38
18
4
13
12
9
16
21
9
11
0
1
2
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
32
3
3
2
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
371
4
18
11
14
28
55
52
38
13
9
7
20
9
17
32
26
13
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
405
7
21
13
17
30
56
52
38
14
11
7
21
11
17
34
30
14
6
2
1
1
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
53
3
6
2
4
2
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
2
0
3
3
2
5
6
1
2
1
2
2
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
726
8
23
27
34
46
79
78
83
76
45
24
24
21
27
40
40
33
10
7
0
0
1
0
0
792
11
29
29
38
48
80
80
85
79
49
25
25
24
29
43
46
35
15
13
1
2
2
2
2
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
6.69%
27.27%
20.69%
6.90%
10.53%
4.17%
1.25%
1.25%
0
2.53%
4.08%
0
4.00%
8.33%
0
6.98%
6.52%
5.71%
33.33%
46.15%
100.00%
100.00%
50.00%
100.00%
100.00%
of OPS
CARGO %
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON 11/29/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 8
1.64%
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.25%
2.35%
1.27%
4.08%
4.00%
0
4.17%
6.90%
0
6.52%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
70
0
19
0
0
2300
0
0
0
0
0
0
2200
0
2
1
3
4
0
0
0
1
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
2100
0
2000
0
1300
1900
0
1200
0
0
1100
1800
0
1000
0
0
0900
0
0
0800
1700
0
1600
0
0600
0700
0
0
0500
0
0
0400
1500
1
0
0300
1400
0
0
0200
0
0
0100
0
0
479
9
28
22
26
32
38
48
30
23
30
26
24
32
34
20
27
21
5
0
0
0
0
1
3
498
9
28
22
26
32
40
49
33
27
30
26
24
33
37
23
28
21
6
0
0
0
0
1
3
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
4
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
480
0
5
18
23
27
44
38
41
32
23
31
30
25
27
30
41
31
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
496
0
5
18
23
27
45
40
44
36
23
31
31
25
27
31
41
32
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
6
8
0
0
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
959
9
33
40
49
59
82
86
71
55
53
57
54
57
61
50
68
52
19
0
0
0
0
1
3
994
9
33
40
49
59
85
89
77
63
53
57
55
58
64
54
69
53
22
1
0
0
0
1
3
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT LAGUARDIA AIRPORT ON 11/28/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 9
0.10%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.55%
0
—
—
—
0
0
of OPS
CARGO %
3.42%
0
0
0
0
0
3.53%
3.37%
7.79%
12.70%
0
0
1.82%
1.72%
4.69%
7.41%
1.45%
1.89%
9.09%
100.00%
—
—
—
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
71
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
0
22
0
0
2300
0
2200
0
0
0
2100
0
0
1
2
1
2
1
3
2
0
3
1
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0100
0
0
477
9
28
25
23
33
29
39
34
24
32
29
25
30
37
22
24
27
3
0
0
0
0
1
3
499
9
28
25
23
33
30
41
35
26
33
32
27
30
40
23
27
30
3
0
0
0
0
1
3
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
2
0
4
4
1
0
2
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
470
0
5
18
23
27
41
32
36
32
23
29
35
25
23
39
35
26
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
498
0
5
18
23
27
43
35
41
34
23
33
39
26
23
41
38
26
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
6
4
1
7
6
1
3
3
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
947
9
33
43
46
60
70
71
70
56
55
58
60
55
60
61
59
53
24
0
0
0
0
1
3
997
9
33
43
46
60
73
76
76
60
56
65
66
56
63
64
65
56
26
0
0
0
0
1
3
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT LAGUARDIA AIRPORT ON 11/29/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 10
0.10%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.85%
—
—
—
—
0
0
of OPS
CARGO %
4.91%
0
0
0
0
0
4.11%
6.58%
7.89%
6.67%
1.79%
10.77%
9.09%
1.79%
4.76%
4.69%
9.23%
5.36%
3.85%
—
—
—
—
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
72
0
0
0
3
2
3
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
5
3
1
3
38
0
1200
1
19
1
1100
7
3
0
0
1000
0
0
0900
2
2
1
0
0800
2300
1
0700
2
2200
3
0600
0
0
0
2
0500
2100
1
0400
0
0
0
1
0300
0
1
0200
0
2000
0
0100
0
1900
0
529
11
15
35
22
36
48
58
31
28
33
28
32
23
31
31
20
37
5
2
0
0
0
1
2
586
12
15
35
22
36
54
66
34
33
36
29
35
25
38
34
22
40
10
4
1
1
1
1
2
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
16
2
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
33
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
5
6
2
3
2
2
0
1
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
531
0
17
8
32
23
47
59
38
30
19
31
34
36
19
48
44
33
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
580
2
17
9
34
23
51
64
43
36
21
35
37
38
19
50
50
33
13
3
0
0
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
35
3
0
1
2
0
5
2
3
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
3
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
71
0
0
0
0
0
5
11
5
11
5
4
5
3
7
4
5
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1,060
11
32
43
54
59
95
117
69
58
52
59
66
59
50
79
64
70
17
3
0
0
0
1
2
1,166
14
32
44
56
59
105
130
77
69
57
64
72
63
57
84
72
73
23
7
1
1
1
2
3
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON 11/28/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 11
3.00%
21.43%
0
2.27%
3.57%
0
4.76%
1.54%
3.90%
0
0
1.56%
1.39%
1.59%
0
1.19%
4.17%
1.37%
17.39%
28.57%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
50.00%
33.33%
of OPS
CARGO %
6.09%
0
0
0
0
0
4.76%
8.46%
6.49%
15.94%
8.77%
6.25%
6.94%
4.76%
12.28%
4.76%
6.94%
2.74%
8.70%
28.57%
0
0
0
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
0
29
1
1
2
3
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
0
0
0
0
1
21
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
73
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
1
1
5
2
6
2
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0100
535
11
15
35
23
35
38
37
43
37
38
30
30
28
34
30
16
45
5
2
0
0
0
1
2
585
12
15
35
23
35
43
41
48
38
39
35
32
34
36
31
20
47
9
5
2
1
1
1
2
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
16
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
34
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
5
5
6
3
3
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
531
0
17
8
32
23
49
47
46
27
23
32
32
39
24
48
40
27
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
581
2
17
9
34
23
51
53
51
32
29
35
35
39
26
53
45
27
16
2
0
0
1
0
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
37
3
0
1
2
0
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
5
0
3
4
2
1
2
0
1
63
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
9
6
7
8
5
6
3
1
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,066
11
32
43
55
58
87
84
89
64
61
62
62
67
58
78
56
72
21
3
0
0
0
1
2
1,166
14
32
44
57
58
94
94
99
70
68
70
67
73
62
84
65
74
25
7
2
1
2
1
3
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT NEWARK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON 11/29/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 12
3.17%
21.43%
0
2.27%
3.51%
0
4.26%
2.13%
1.01%
0
0
0
0
0
1.61%
5.95%
7.69%
0
12.00%
57.14%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
0
33.33%
of OPS
CARGO %
5.40%
0
0
0
0
0
3.19%
8.51%
9.09%
8.57%
10.29%
11.43%
7.46%
8.22%
4.84%
1.19%
6.15%
2.70%
4.00%
0
0
0
0
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
0
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0900
1000
1100
1200
74
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0
0
0
0
5
12
12
7
4
7
0
8
7
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0500
0800
0
0400
0
1
0
0300
0
0
0
0
0200
0600
0
0100
0
0700
0
286
3
7
9
27
30
11
12
31
29
18
16
10
18
11
15
25
9
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
355
3
7
9
27
30
16
24
43
36
22
23
10
26
18
16
28
9
2
4
0
0
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
0
0
0
0
0
2
11
13
5
3
2
8
2
1
3
1
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
285
0
1
26
25
4
24
28
38
12
12
12
17
12
18
34
6
9
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
348
3
2
26
25
4
26
39
51
17
15
14
25
14
19
37
7
14
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
8
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
7
23
25
12
7
9
8
10
8
4
4
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
571
3
8
35
52
34
35
40
69
41
30
28
27
30
29
49
31
18
8
2
0
0
0
1
1
703
6
9
35
52
34
42
63
94
53
37
37
35
40
37
53
35
23
11
5
0
0
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
1.14%
50.00%
11.11%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.35%
9.09%
40.00%
—
—
—
0
0
of OPS
CARGO %
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 11/28/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 13
17.64%
0
0
0
0
0
16.67%
36.51%
26.60%
22.64%
18.92%
24.32%
22.86%
25.00%
21.62%
7.55%
11.43%
17.39%
18.18%
20.00%
—
—
—
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
75
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0
0
0
0
3
6
7
9
5
2
1
3
6
0
6
1
0
0
0700
2
0
0
0
0600
1100
3
0500
0
0
1000
0
0400
0
0
0300
0
0
0
0200
0
0
0800
0
0900
0
0100
290
3
7
10
26
29
10
11
36
29
16
18
9
16
11
14
34
6
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
344
3
7
10
26
29
13
17
43
38
21
20
10
19
17
14
40
7
3
5
0
0
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
10
10
4
2
3
1
1
3
2
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
282
0
1
26
25
4
23
33
28
14
12
15
17
11
19
33
6
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
342
3
2
26
25
4
25
43
38
24
16
17
20
12
20
36
9
14
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
8
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
106
0
0
0
0
0
5
16
17
19
9
4
4
4
7
3
8
7
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
572
3
8
36
51
33
33
44
64
43
28
33
26
27
30
47
40
14
8
2
0
0
0
1
1
686
6
9
36
51
33
38
60
81
62
37
37
30
31
37
50
49
21
10
6
0
0
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
1.17%
50.00%
11.11%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.04%
0
0
50.00%
—
—
—
0
0
of OPS
CARGO %
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 11/29/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 14
15.45%
0
0
0
0
0
13.16%
26.67%
20.99%
30.65%
24.32%
10.81%
13.33%
12.90%
18.92%
6.00%
16.33%
33.33%
20.00%
16.67%
—
—
—
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
0
0
0
1
6
6
9
5
5
3
65
0
1300
1
4
0
0
1200
0
0
1100
9
8
0
0
1000
2300
0
0900
5
0
0
0800
2
0
0
0
0700
2200
0
0600
0
1
0
0
0
0
2100
0
0
0300
0
0
0200
0400
0
0100
0500
0
378
6
14
23
22
22
36
23
29
23
17
29
17
26
25
23
21
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
443
6
14
23
22
23
42
29
38
28
22
32
18
30
34
31
26
21
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
12
6
6
6
6
1
4
3
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
376
0
0
17
20
16
33
37
24
22
32
22
20
18
28
18
30
34
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
436
0
0
17
20
16
36
45
36
28
38
28
26
19
32
21
32
35
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
0
0
0
0
1
9
14
21
11
11
9
7
5
13
11
7
3
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
754
6
14
40
42
38
69
60
53
45
49
51
37
44
53
41
51
53
6
0
0
0
0
0
2
879
6
14
40
42
39
78
74
74
56
60
60
44
49
66
52
58
56
6
1
2
0
0
0
2
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT 11/28/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
0
of OPS
CARGO %
14.22%
0
0
0
0
2.56%
11.54%
18.92%
28.38%
19.64%
18.33%
15.00%
15.91%
10.20%
19.70%
21.15%
12.07%
5.36%
0
100.00%
100.00%
—
—
—
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
0
68
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0800
0900
1000
1100
77
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0
0
0
0
9
6
8
7
3
2
2
5
8
8
6
3
0
0
1
0
0700
0
0400
0
0
0300
0
0
0
0200
0
0
0500
0
0600
0
0100
378
6
14
22
23
23
33
26
25
26
23
28
16
27
19
28
21
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
446
6
14
22
23
23
42
32
33
33
26
30
18
32
27
36
27
17
2
0
1
0
0
0
2
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
9
8
11
4
4
2
5
5
3
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
374
0
0
17
20
16
34
36
26
21
28
22
23
18
25
20
29
29
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
437
0
0
17
20
16
36
42
35
29
39
26
27
20
30
25
32
32
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
131
0
0
0
0
0
11
12
17
15
14
6
6
7
13
13
9
6
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
752
6
14
39
43
39
67
62
51
47
51
50
39
45
44
48
50
43
12
0
0
0
0
0
2
883
6
14
39
43
39
78
74
68
62
65
56
45
52
57
61
59
49
12
1
1
0
0
0
2
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT 11/29/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
—
—
—
0
of OPS
CARGO %
14.84%
0
0
0
0
0
14.10%
16.22%
25.00%
24.19%
21.54%
10.71%
13.33%
13.46%
22.81%
21.31%
15.25%
12.24%
0
100.00%
100.00%
—
—
—
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
78
0
32
2
0
0
0
0
4
1
15
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0
0
0
0
1
4
4
3
5
2
2
2
3
1800
0
1100
1700
0
1000
0
0
0
0900
4
1
0
3
0800
1600
0
0700
1
0
1500
4
0600
0
1
0500
0
1400
0
0400
0
0
0
0
0300
0
0
0200
0
0
1300
0
1200
0
0100
332
6
14
10
24
27
23
11
29
34
11
4
26
37
10
21
24
19
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
379
7
18
10
24
27
24
17
33
37
16
6
28
39
13
21
31
20
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
16
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
4
0
0
1
0
1
1
29
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
2
2
0
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
323
1
1
33
8
27
6
42
31
10
3
36
23
6
28
28
17
15
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
368
2
2
34
8
27
8
51
33
12
3
39
25
8
31
32
18
20
11
1
0
1
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
31
2
5
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
8
1
0
1
0
1
1
61
0
0
0
0
0
3
12
6
5
5
5
4
4
6
2
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
655
7
15
43
32
54
29
53
60
44
14
40
49
43
38
49
41
34
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
747
9
20
44
32
54
32
68
66
49
19
45
53
47
44
53
49
40
18
2
0
1
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
4.15%
22.22%
25.00%
2.27%
0
0
0
4.41%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.77%
6.12%
7.50%
44.44%
50.00%
—
100.00%
—
100.00%
100.00%
of OPS
CARGO %
8.17%
0
0
0
0
0
9.38%
17.65%
9.09%
10.20%
26.32%
11.11%
7.55%
8.51%
13.64%
3.77%
10.20%
7.50%
5.56%
0
—
0
—
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON 11/28/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 17
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
1
1
1
1
0
23
0
0
0
2
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
15
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
79
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
5
2
1
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0100
336
6
14
10
25
23
29
8
32
32
15
6
24
38
7
22
22
21
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
374
7
18
10
25
23
30
10
35
33
16
7
25
38
12
24
24
25
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
ARRIVALS
16
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
5
0
0
1
0
1
1
25
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
5
2
2
2
3
1
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
322
1
1
33
8
28
7
41
31
9
5
32
28
6
29
22
17
13
9
2
0
0
0
0
0
363
2
2
34
8
28
8
43
36
11
7
35
31
7
29
23
19
20
14
2
0
2
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
DEPARTURES
31
2
5
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
11
2
0
1
0
1
1
48
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
8
3
3
3
4
1
5
3
2
8
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
658
7
15
43
33
51
36
49
63
41
20
38
52
44
36
44
39
34
11
2
0
0
0
0
0
737
9
20
44
33
51
38
53
71
44
23
42
56
45
41
47
43
45
24
4
0
2
0
1
1
CARGO GEN AV OTHER TOTAL
TOTAL OPERATIONS
4.21%
22.22%
25.00%
2.27%
0
0
0
1.89%
0
0
0
2.38%
0
0
0
0
4.65%
6.67%
45.83%
50.00%
—
50.00%
—
100.00%
100.00%
of OPS
CARGO %
6.51%
0
0
0
0
0
5.26%
5.66%
11.27%
6.82%
13.04%
7.14%
7.14%
2.22%
12.20%
6.38%
4.65%
17.78%
8.33%
0
—
50.00%
—
0
0
of OPS
GEN AV %
ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BY HOUR AT BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 11/29/90
0000
TIME
TABLE 18
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
80
A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo Airports
81